Evaluation of Seismic Torsional Provisions in Uniform Building Code
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 121, Issue 10
Abstract
The main change in the torsional provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) from the 1979 UBC edition is the need to amplify the accidental eccentricity for torsionally flexible structural systems. This paper evaluates the consequences of the change on the strength design requirement and the ductility demand on the edge lateral force-resisting elements in torsionally unbalanced structural systems, which are designed based on the two editions of the UBC code. The major improvement of the 1991 UBC is its ability to limit the additional ductility demand on the stiff-edge element of a torsionally unbalanced system to an acceptable level, even when the system is torsionally flexible.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Chandler, A. M., and Duan, X. N.(1991). “Evaluation of factors influencing the inelastic seismic performance of torsionally asymmetric buildings.”Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dynamics, 20(1), 87–95.
2.
Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K.(1991). “Evaluation of torsional provisions in seismic codes.”J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(12), 3762–3782.
3.
Correnza, J. C., Hutchinson, G. L., and Chandler, A. M.(1992). “A review of reference models for assessing inelastic seismic torsional effects in buildings.”Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engrg., 11(11), 465–484.
4.
Esteva, L.(1987). “Earthquake engineering research and practice in Mexico after 1985 Earthquake.”Bull. New Zealand Nat. Soc. for Earthquake Engrg., Wellington, New Zealand, 20(3), 159–200.
5.
Gomez, R., and Garcia-Ranz, F.(1988). “The Mexico Earthquake of September 19, 1985—complementary technical norms for earthquake resistant design.”Earthquake Spectra, 4(3), 441–459.
6.
Mitchell, D.(1990). “Damage to buildings due to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake—a Canadian code perspective.”Can. J. Civ. Engrg., Ottawa, Canada, 17(15), 813–834.
7.
Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. (1982). Earthquake spectra and design . Earthquake Engrg. Res. Inst., Berkeley, Calif.
8.
Rutenberg, A., Eisenberger, M., and Sholet, G.(1992). “Inelastic seismic response of code designed single storey asymmetry structures.”J. Engrg. Struct., 14(2), 91–102.
9.
Tso, W. K.(1993). “Discussion of `A review of reference models for assessing inelastic seismic torsional effects in buildings,' by J. C. Correnza et al. ”Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engrg., 12(7), 445–447.
10.
Tso, W. K., and Wong, C. M.(1993). “An evaluation of the New Zealand code torsional provision.”Bull. of New Zealand Nat. Soc. for Earthquake Engrg., Wellington, New Zealand, 26(2), 194–207.
11.
Tso, W. K., and Zhu, T. J.(1992). “Design of torsionally unbalanced structural systems based on code provisions. I: ductility demand.”Earthquake Engrg. and Struct. Dynamics, 21(7), 609–627.
12.
Uniform building code. (1991). “Section 2312: Earthquake regulations.” International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.
13.
Uniform building code. (1979). “Section 2312: Earthquake regulations.” International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, Calif.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 121 • Issue 10 • October 1995
Pages: 1436 - 1442
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Oct 1, 1995
Published in print: Oct 1995
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.